Aujeszky's Disease (Hansard, 24 June 1980)

§ Mr. Peter Walker

We recognise that there are those in the industry who consider that, with the incidence of Aujeszky's disease at a relatively low level in England, the time is opportune for the Government to introduce a scheme of compulsory slaughter of infected herds with compensation from public funds for the animals slaughtered. On the other hand, there are 113W those who point to the fact that the disease has existed here for 20 years or more and has shown no sign of "exploding" as has happened in some other countries, and that the resultant economic loss in the great majority of the herds affected has been insignificant. They note that in some of the herds the owners have eliminated the disease by a process of testing and culling the infected animals and that, in others, it has faded out.

Eradication of the disease by compulsory slaughter of infected herds does not appear to have been attempted in any other country. My veterinary advisers consider that such a policy would probably prove successful in this country over time, although there can be no certainty that a disease, which usually shows no clinical signs of its presence, could be completely eliminated except at considerable cost. Our best estimate of the cost of a compulsory slaughter policy, assuming no lingering problem with hidden disease, is £3.7 million, of which some £2.6 million represents the value of animals slaughtered and the cost of cleansing and disinfection and the remainder the disruption cost to the businesses affected. In addition, there would be the cost and other consequences arising from the deployment of scarce veterinary resources to deal with this disease at the expense of other important work.

In the light of all the considerations, including the current financial and manpower constraints, the Government have concluded that a compulsory slaughter policy with compensation at public expense would not be justified. We would be prepared to give further consideration to compulsory slaughter and to the availability of veterinary staff to deal with it, but only if the industry collectively were prepared to meet the cost and there was a reasonable assurance that pig farmers as a whole were ready to face the consequences of a rigorous application of the policy.

The alternative course, which we favour, is that owners of herds at risk from the disease should be encouraged to take more stringent measures of prevention and control, including the use of vaccine. We shall give immediate attention to applications, under the Medicines Act procedures, for the licensing of inactivated Aujeszky's disease vaccines for use in this country. Properly applied, these vaccines should 114W give substantial protection from the disease and, in an infected herd, should reduce the weight of virus and prevent loss. To delay the licensing of a suitable vaccine while it is subjected to a field trial in this country—as has been suggested—would in our view serve little purpose.

Much can be done to reduce the spread of disease by purchasing animals from known disease-free herds and by stringent application of hygiene and security measures. The State veterinary service will be available to support veterinarians in private practice who require back-up facilities and to provide general advice on disease control measures.

A particular problem arises with elite breeding herds which contract the disease. We propose to hold further discussions with interested organisations about the position of such herds under the rules of the pig health scheme and under those of the Pig Health Control Association and other comparable private organisations.

We shall continue to keep a close watch on this disease and will aim to maintain regular contact on the subject with interested organisations.